SUMMARY OF DECISIONS† OF ILLINOIS COURTS* OF INTEREST TO PHYSICIANS.

ABORTION-DEFINITION OF MOTHER.

Under an indictment for the crime of abortion which resulted in the death of the "mother"-the word "mother" means a woman pregnant with child. Howard vs. People, 185 Ill., 552.

ADVERTISERS OR SELLERS OF MECHANICAL INSTRUMENTS OR DEVICES TO CURE HUMAN ILLS, NOT PRACTICING MEDICINE.

The Act of 1899 regulating the practice of medicine does not include those who merely advertise, puff or sell mechanical instruments or devices though they profess their use will cure human ills. People vs. Lehr, 93 Ill. App., 505; 196 Ill., 361.

POWER OF STATE BOARD OF HEALTH OF ILLINOIS TO REVOKE CERTIFICATES-HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ISSUED

PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1899.

The Act of 1887 to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery in Illinois being a complete revision, repeals by implication the Act of 1887, and since the Act of 1899 expressly repeals the said Act of 1887, the Act of 1899 has become the measure of power of the State Board of Health with respect to all matters embraced in the latter Act. The provision in Section 2 of the Act of 1899 to the effect that no person shall hereafter begin the practice of medicine without first obtaining a license from the State Board of Health, by implication excludes persons practicing medicine prior to July 1, 1899, when the Act took effect, and the provisions in Section 6 giving the Board of Health power to revoke such certificates refers only to certificates issued under the provisions of the Act, and the Act of 1899 does not empower the State Board of Health to discipline holders of certificates issued prior to July 1, 1899, nor revoke such certificates.-State Board of Health vs. Ross, 91 Ill. App., 281. State Board of Health vs. Ross, 191 Ill., 87.

*Many of these decisions have been rendered during the past six years. During the period from January 1, 1897, to May 1, 1903, the State Board of Health has prosecuted sixteen suits in the Supreme and Appellate courts.

See also page 162-7 15th Annual Report Illinois State Board of Health, page 1-47 20th Annual Report and page XCVII. Appendix to 20th Annual Report.

DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH OF ILLINOIS.

By reference also to the Act of the General Assembly to regulate the practice of medicine in this State which provides for the examination and licensing by said Board of persons desiring to practice medicine, it clearly appears that one of the most important duties of the Board was to ascertain and certify to the qualifications of practicing physicians and surgeons and to detect quacks and prevent them and all ignorant pretenders from imposing upon the sick and helpless. Potts vs. Breen, 167 Ill., 67.

VENDORS OF SPECTACLES AND THOSE TREATING DISEASES BY FITTING OF GLASSES.-NOT PRACTICING MEDICINE.

One who causes a customer to look at objects on a wall and therefrom determines what kind of lens are needed to aid his defective vision and then has glasses ground accordingly and fitted into frames, and delivered such spectacles to his customer, is not required to first take out a license from the State Board of Health to practice medicine.

Nor is such a person required to take out a license because he advertises for those who have headache, dizziness, etc., to call upon him, where the advertisement expressly declares he does not give medical treatment and it is apparent from the advertisement that all he professes to do is to fit spectacles to the eye.-Smith vs. People, 92 Ill. App., 22. (Case appealed by State Board of Health, pending in Suprme Court.)

PHYSICIAN'S FEES.

Where a person paid a physician a certain sum to cure him of a certain disease on condition that if he failed to effect the cure such person should submit to further treatment, the physician was entitled to retain the amount agreed upon, even though the cure was not effected, if the person refused or neglected to submit to further treatment.-Madison vs. Mangon, 77 Ill. App., 651.

The plaintiff could not be made legally liable to pay for services rendered by an unlicensed physician, and hence could not recover for money paid or agreed to be paid to such physician.City of Chicago vs. Honey, 10 Ill. App., 535.

WHAT ITINERANT VENDORS COME WITHIN THE ACT.

The right to prescribe medicines for the cure of diseases and to administer them falls clearly within the practice of medicine, and the regulation of the sale of drugs and nostrums by itinerant vendors as clearly falls within the purpose of the Act, as expressed in its title.-People for use of State Board of Health vs. Blue Mountain Joe, 129 Ill., 370.

ITINERANT VENDORS OF MEDICINE.

Where a medical company employs an agent in a certain territory and enters into a written contract with him for the sale of its drugs, prescribing his duties, manner of selling, compensation, etc., the medical company are the sellers of the drugs, etc., and as such are required to take out a license under this Act to regulate the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois.-Watkins Medical Co. vs. Paul, 87 App., 278.

LIABILITY OF PERSON WHO CALLS A PHYSICIAN.

The law does not presume from the mere summoning of the physician and requesting him to care for the sick or injured party, any implied promise by the one so acting to pay for the service of the physician.-Starrett vs. Miley, 79 Ill. App., 658.

LIABILITY OF A PHYSICIAN FOR MALPRACTICE.

A physician who has given a patient the benefit of his best judgment is not liable for negligence, even if his judgment is erroneous, unless the error is inconsistent with reasonable skill and care. And the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the physician's want of skill, care and diligence and that the injury complained of resulted from a failure to exercise these requisites.McKee vs. Allen, 94 Ill. App., 147. Littlejohn vs. Arbogast, 95 Ill. App., 605. Utley vs. Burns, 70 Ill., 162. Matthei vs. Wooley, 69 Ill. App., 654. Barnes vs. Means, 82 Ill., 379.

GOOD OR REPUTABLE STANDING OF A MEDICAL COLLEGE.

The State Board of Health is possessed of discretionary power to determine whether a medical college is in good standing within the meaning of the statute and as defined in its resolutions, and when the Board has determined that fact, and such decision is adversely to an applicant for a license by virtue of a diploma issued by a medical college, such decision is not subject to review by mandamus proceedings. Illinois State Board of Health vs. People ex rel Bailey, 102 Ill. App., 614. Opinion filed July 2, 1902. People ex rel Sheppard vs. State Board of Dental Examiners, 110 Ill., 180. State Board of Dental Examiners vs. People ex rel Cooper, 123 Ill., 227.

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE WORDS "MEDICAL TREATMENT."

Where a physician agrees to give medical treatment to parties at a stated price, "the medical treatment" includes services in surgical cases. Clinton vs. Ramsey, 20 III. App., 577.

MIDWIFERY AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.

The practice of midwifery is an important department of medicine, and is so recognized by and included within the provisions of the Act regulating the practice of medicine in this State.-State Board of Health vs. Arendt, 60 Ill. App., 89.

OSTEOPATHY.

See article bearing this caption following State Requirements infra.

PROOF OF PRACTICE.

Where persons hold themselves out as doctors, by treating, operating on, or prescribing for physical ailments, and are believed by the patients to be doctors, such persons will be held as such.Matthei vs. Wooley, 69 Ill. App., 654.

If the appellee held himself out to the appellant and by treating and prescribing for his ailments induced him to believe he was a doctor, then he is chargeable in that character.-McNevens vs. Lowe, 40 Ill., 209.

Where the question of the practice by a physician or surgeon arises in a collateral proceeding, it will be presumed that he has obeyed the law and obtain the required license, but were he himself suing to recover for his professional services he would be required affirmatively to show his compliance with the law.North Chicago Street Ry. Co. vs. Cotton, 140 Ill., 486.

But in the case of prosecution on behalf of the public, license or due qualifications under the statute is not presumed, and it rests with the defendant to prove it.-Williams vs. People, 20 Ill. App., 92. 121 Ill., 84.

REPORTS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.

The statute requiring the collection of statistics, pertaining to the population of the state and health of the people, may impart useful information in the enactment of laws valuable to science and the medical profession to whom the people look for remedies for disease and for means to preserve health, and we see that it is difficult to discover oppression or injustice in requiring the medical profession to make known to the world statistics which may promote public health.-Robinson Clerk, etc vs. Hamilton, 14 N. W. R., 202.

AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE POWERS OF THE STATE BOARD TO REVOKE CERTIFICATES.

The State Board of Health had power to revoke certificates issued to individuals to practice medicine for the same reason it might refuse to issue such certificates, viz.: for "unpro

fessional or dishonorable conduct." The statute in this respect, however, must have a reasonable construction. The Board cannot from mere caprice or without cause revoke a certificate fairly issued upon sufficient evidence of the holder's qualifications. The right of the citizen to practice his profession, for which he has expended time and money to qualify himself, is too important to be taken away from him without some reasonable cause. It must be from some act or conduct that would, in the common judgment, be deemed "unprofessional or dishonorable." There is no evidence in this record that shows, or tends to show, defendant was not a reputable physician, nor does it appear the State Board of Health, from any evidence submitted to it, or otherwise, ever found defendant had been guilty of any act or conduct that was unprofessional or dishonorable. It does appear, from their minutes, the Board met to investigate charges against defendant, and it is recited in the record of their proceedings, that "on the 27th day of February an advertisement appeared in the 'News-Democrat,' of Belleville, Illinois, under the caption, 'A Surgical Triumph,' and announcing that Dr. J. Cresap McCoy, late of Bellevue Hospital, N. Y., had opened an office, for a limited time only, in a building fronting on the public square, Belleville, Illinois. Copy of advertisement submitted to members of the Board. Similar advertisements appeared in the St. Louis papers, filled with matter pertaining to J. Cresap McCoy, and his wonderful attainments and success, with coarse wood-cuts of the human body and its members. After due consideration of the evidence, and on default of defense, it was ordered that certificate No. 6793, issued to Dr. J. Cresap McCoy, be revoked for unprofessional and dishonorable conduct." It will be assumed from the recital that "after due consideration of the evidence," it was on account of the "advertisements" submitted to the Board that defendant's certificate was revoked. That seems to have been regarded as "unprofessional and dishonorable conduct." So far as the contents of these "advertisements" are given, they are of a very harmless kind; but whether harmless or not, the specific charge against defendant was not for causing these publications. It was for making "statements and promises * calculated to deceive and defraud the public," and it is not perceived how these "advertisements" could tend in the remotest degree to prove that specific charge. Had the Board found him guilty of the charge alleged against himthat defendant had made "statements and promises calculated to deceive and defraud the public"-that, indeed, would have been "unprofessional and dishonorable" conduct.-State Board of Health vs. McCoy, 125 Ill., 289, June 16, 1888.

NECESSARY FREQUENCY OF PHYSICIAN'S VISITS TO PATIENT.

The physician is considered the proper judge of the necessary frequency of his visits so long as he he is in charge of the patient.Ebner vs. Mackey, 87 Ill. App., 306.